The American way for the wealthy. Justice delayed…Laife Fulk wrote:Don't be surprised if the NFL files a flurry of different requests to delay or postpone trial over the coming weeks. What will they claim as the reasoning? No clue, but they almost certainly have a list of "next steps" they're going to follow to try and drag this out.
Los Angeles Rams owner Stan Kroenke angers NFL owners with financial pivot related to lawsuit on St. Louis move, sources say
NEW YORK -- Los Angeles Rams owner Stan Kroenke may be trying to back away from his promise to cover tens of millions of dollars in legal expenses related to his team's 2016 departure from St. Louis, a revelation that angered many NFL owners when they learned of it Tuesday, sources told ESPN.
The legal update from NFL general counsel Jeff Pash, during the owners' first in-person meeting since December 2019, stunned many in the room, according to accounts from people who were there and others briefed on the proceedings.
The league, through a spokesperson, declined comment Wednesday. A Rams spokesperson also declined to comment.
The Rams and other owners are embroiled in a fierce, four-year lawsuit from the St. Louis Regional Convention and Sports Complex authority, which argues that the league broke its own relocation guidelines, misled the public on its plans to leave the city, and cost the city millions in revenue. The league has lost many of its motions and was denied a hearing in the U.S. Supreme Court.
The case has entangled all 32 teams and cost millions in legal fees, which to this point have been mostly covered by Kroenke under an indemnification agreement he signed as part of the relocation. For some teams, the bills have run to eight figures.
Although Kroenke has been in discussions with the league for some time over the scope of the indemnification agreement, owners first learned of a shift in his position several hours into Tuesday's meeting at the Intercontinental New York Barclay hotel. Sources told ESPN that executives for each team were asked to leave the room; only owners, representatives for teams that didn't send owners, and senior league executives remained.
Pash delivered a lengthy update on the lawsuit, including the league's latest argument that the trial set for January should be moved out of St. Louis in order to get an impartial jury.
Sources told ESPN that Kroenke then stood and told the room that he has invested in the league and done everything that the league has asked him to do. He apologized for the ongoing lawsuit but argued that it wasn't his fault.
Kroenke took a few questions from the room. Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, a fierce Kroenke advocate who championed the relocation and helped push it over the finish line during a contentious vote in January of 2016, told the room that Kroenke had done a lot for the league.
Then, in an unusual move, Goodell asked Kroenke to leave the room, sources told ESPN. He did.
That's when Pash told the room that the league was notified by Kroenke's attorneys that Kroenke is challenging the indemnification agreement that all three teams involved in the LA derby in 2016 -- the Rams, Chargers and Raiders -- signed on the morning of the vote.
Over the years, teams have been required to provide eight years of phone records and emails for discovery. This past summer, St. Louis Circuit Judge Christopher McGraugh ordered Kroenke and five other owners to provide financial records to help a jury determine potential damages. Earlier in October, McGraugh fined Clark Hunt of the Kansas City Chiefs, John Mara of the New York Giants, Robert Kraft of the New England Patriots and the Cowboys' Jones for failing to provide full records. Kroenke has been footing almost all the bills.
Sources said the room seemed stunned by Pash's update on Kroenke's view of the indemnification agreement.
Jones spoke and reminded his colleagues that Kroenke has been a good partner, engineering the league's return to Los Angeles after 22 years away and building a stadium that some involved in its construction refer to as "our $6 billion stadium."
Next came Kraft, who sources said seemed to speak for many in the room that Kroenke's position was unfair. He mentioned all the legal hassle that he had gone through. In 2016, he had served on a six-person LA committee. He argued that if providing financial records as a result of lawsuits would be a consequence of serving on league committees, it would dissuade other owners from wanting to be on committees and making consequential decisions for the league.
Raiders owner Mark Davis reminded the room that, in 2016, the LA committee recommended a rival Raiders-Chargers stadium project in Carson, California, by a 5-1 vote over Kroenke's project in Inglewood.
Mara spoke next and said Kroenke's change in position was ridiculous, and that if Kroenke had not agreed to indemnify the league, the owners wouldn't have voted for him to move. He said anyone who was in the room in Houston when the vote was taken would know that.
The sources said Jones argued that he's been dealing with the legal issues, too, and indicated the problems were not the fault of Kroenke or the league but because one owner's deposition was shaky. That owner's name was not mentioned.
But in 2019, an ESPN report on the Rams-Chargers marriage detailed that discovery in the lawsuit had turned up an email from an official affiliated with the competing Carson proposal that outlined to St. Louis authorities all the ways the Rams seemed to be in violation of the league's relocation policy, providing a blueprint for the city of St. Louis' lawsuit.
A source close to Kroenke says now that the Rams owner believes that some of the legal issues arise from that email, and that after building the stadium and agreeing to house the Chargers as a tenant for $1 a year, he shouldn't be responsible for all legal fees.
Jones and Pash had a brief back and forth, and then Jones asked Pash if Kroenke had tried to settle the lawsuit.
Pash replied that he had, sources told ESPN. Jones indicated that Kroenke's settlement figure was billions of dollars. Pash refused to confirm the figure -- a source with direct knowledge of the situation told ESPN it was less than a billion -- but told those in the meeting that it was more than the net worth of some in the room.
Sources then described several owners speaking up.
Jim Irsay of the Indianapolis Colts said that the owners should call Kroenke back into the room and answer questions from the membership. Jones argued that Kroenke shouldn't do so without an attorney.
Art Rooney II of the Pittsburgh Steelers said that lawyers should handle all these issues. Mara then reiterated that nobody in the room would have voted for Kroenke to move if not for the full indemnification.
At one point, sources told ESPN, Jones seemed to indicate that Kroenke might sue the league over the indemnification agreement. He mentioned that, in 1995, the league sued him over sponsorship deals and he countersued.
The lawsuit, currently in discovery phase, is due for trial on Jan. 10, 2022 - weeks before Kroenke's SoFi Stadium hosts the Super Bowl.
https://www.sportscasting.com/the-nba-p ... disappear/With the help of lawyer Donald Schupak, the Silna brothers hammered out a two-part deal with NBA owners. First, they collected $2.2 million for Spirits of St. Louis players taken by NBA teams in a dispersal draft. In addition, they insisted on a share of the money from the NBA’s national TV rights, taking one-seventh of each of the four ex-ABA teams’ shares.
That gave the Silna brothers roughly 2% of the total NBA TV revenue, which was a relatively insignificant money stream in 1976 but still money for nothing. However, the Silnas were more visionary than their partners in the deal. Once Magic Johnson and Larry Bird entered the league, followed in short order by Michael Jordan and a host of other stars, NBA television rights became a hot commodity. When brothers Ozzie and Daniel Silna negotiated their buyout with the NBA to shut down the Spirits of St. Louis, their lawyer insisted on a clause that specified that the deal would continue in perpetuity. That foresight proved to be brilliant.
From 1977 to 2014, the NBA took in about $15 billion in national TV money from increasingly lucrative contracts with the networks. Per their agreement with the NBA, that earned $300 million for the Silnas.
Theres no way I would retreat now and "settle". We've won virtually everything to this day and then look at the infighting happening at that league meeting yesterday with all the league owners blaming each other. We can get virtually anything we want at this point from them. They are firmly on the ropes. The ball is in our court. Every cliche imaginable.Techstl wrote: ↑Oct 27, 2021Shouldn't we take $1B and move on? I think if we hold out for a NFL team with out an owner stepping forward it will never get settled. Additionally, I am not sure that there are enough corporate sponsors to support 4 professional team. I think an NFL team would hurt both Blues and STLFC.
If its a team I want a team and then some.sc4mayor wrote: ↑Oct 27, 2021I don't think anyone of consequence is holding out for a team...but more cash. Sure, there are football fans and some low level media pundits pushing for a team as a settlement...but I don't think that's what the legal team is after in the least.
The NFL is a big deal so I totally get it. Even though the league is run by shady scumbags.Aesir wrote: ↑Oct 27, 2021Someone keeps pumping the "we can get a team" patheticness and people keep falling for it.
If a lawsuit filed by Kroenke against the NFL were to win, and lawsuit filed by St. Louis were to win...could that financial hit put some of the other owners in a position to sell?gone corporate wrote: ↑Oct 27, 2021Essentially, the NFL just saw Kroenke is about to go full Kroenke on them.
Advantage: Plaintiffs, by an order of magnitude.
Just a thought given the quote from aboveLaife Fulk wrote:Fwiw, Kroenke almost certainly wouldn't prevail if he sued the other owners over the indemnification agreement. I don't' want to say 0%, but it would be microscopic. And in the extremely unlikely chance he did prevail, and the city were to hypothetically win a judgement of a few billion dollars, the League has enough revenue to take the hit. Individual owners wouldn't have to sell to afford the judgement. If Kroenke chooses the scorched earth tactic, my guess is that the other owners force him out rather than dealing with his BS moving forward.
Yes, but court case could still go either way and even if region gets a win it will most likely result in more appeals, more litigation and stretch either way for years.Suburban Sprawl wrote: ↑Oct 27, 2021Theres no way I would retreat now and "settle". We've won virtually everything to this day and then look at the infighting happening at that league meeting yesterday with all the league owners blaming each other. We can get virtually anything we want at this point from them. They are firmly on the ropes. The ball is in our court. Every cliche imaginable.Techstl wrote: ↑Oct 27, 2021Shouldn't we take $1B and move on? I think if we hold out for a NFL team with out an owner stepping forward it will never get settled. Additionally, I am not sure that there are enough corporate sponsors to support 4 professional team. I think an NFL team would hurt both Blues and STLFC.
Let’s take your middle number $1.4bdredger wrote: ↑Oct 27, 2021Yes, but court case could still go either way and even if region gets a win it will most likely result in more appeals, more litigation and stretch either way for years.Suburban Sprawl wrote: ↑Oct 27, 2021Theres no way I would retreat now and "settle". We've won virtually everything to this day and then look at the infighting happening at that league meeting yesterday with all the league owners blaming each other. We can get virtually anything we want at this point from them. They are firmly on the ropes. The ball is in our court. Every cliche imaginable.Techstl wrote: ↑Oct 27, 2021Shouldn't we take $1B and move on? I think if we hold out for a NFL team with out an owner stepping forward it will never get settled. Additionally, I am not sure that there are enough corporate sponsors to support 4 professional team. I think an NFL team would hurt both Blues and STLFC.
I'm with techstl, I would settle for $1.3-$1.5 billion which would give the lawyers a big pay day & still leave the parties involved with a billion. Would probably help break the county induced log jam on getting Convention Upgrades going and city would have some funds to invest around the dome/the immediate northside
Doesn’t the state get a cut as well?dbInSouthCity wrote:Let’s take your middle number $1.4bdredger wrote: ↑Oct 27, 2021Yes, but court case could still go either way and even if region gets a win it will most likely result in more appeals, more litigation and stretch either way for years.Suburban Sprawl wrote: ↑Oct 27, 2021Theres no way I would retreat now and "settle". We've won virtually everything to this day and then look at the infighting happening at that league meeting yesterday with all the league owners blaming each other. We can get virtually anything we want at this point from them. They are firmly on the ropes. The ball is in our court. Every cliche imaginable.
I'm with techstl, I would settle for $1.3-$1.5 billion which would give the lawyers a big pay day & still leave the parties involved with a billion. Would probably help break the county induced log jam on getting Convention Upgrades going and city would have some funds to invest around the dome/the immediate northside
35% to lawyers = $490m
$910,000,000 left for STL county, city and RCA to split. If it’s a even 3 way it’s $303m for each entity. City and county would break even for cost of Dome bond payments + inflation
STL city and county each spent $180,000,000 on the dome. State spent $360,000,000 via RCA
